Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 39543

 1                           Thursday, 1 October 2015

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.32 a.m.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning to everyone.

 6             Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  This is case

 8     IT-09-92-T, The Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

10             No preliminaries.  Therefore, the witness can be escorted in the

11     courtroom.

12             Mr. Lukic, you have some 25 minutes left, if I understand well.

13                           [The witness takes the stand]

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning, Ms. Subotic.

15             THE WITNESS:  Good morning.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  It will not come as a surprise but I still remind

17     you again that you're bound by the solemn declaration that you've given

18     at the beginning of your testimony.

19             Mr. Lukic will now, for another half-hour, continue his

20     examination-in-chief.

21             Mr. Lukic.

22             MR. LUKIC:  Good morning.  Thank you, Your Honour.

23                           WITNESS:  ZORICA SUBOTIC [Resumed]

24                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

25                           Examination by Mr. Lukic: [Continued]

Page 39544

 1        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning again, Ms. Subotic.

 2        A.   Good morning.

 3        Q.   Very briefly --

 4             MR. LUKIC:  1D05497 on our screens.

 5        Q.   [Interpretation] But before we begin with your report, I'll go

 6     back to what we finished yesterday with.  You were talking about the

 7     firing tables for modified air bombs.

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   You mentioned that people from Pretis showed you these tables,

10     and you were asked in whose office you saw them.

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   Where are the offices of those people in Pretis who came to your

13     office?  In which city, in which state?

14        A.   Their offices are in Sarajevo.

15        Q.   Do you know who was involved in the making of these tables?

16        A.   No.

17        Q.   You mentioned Krstic yesterday.  Could it be Krsmanovic?

18        A.   I'm sorry, it was Krsmanovic.  You are right.

19             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  What is his first name?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, I said yesterday already

21     I don't remember, but Counsel Lukic is absolutely right.  The last name

22     is Krsmanovic.

23             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And yesterday you referred to a certain Krstic.

24     Who is that?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I got the name wrong.  It is

Page 39545

 1     Mr. Krsmanovic, not Krstic.  I made a mistake yesterday.

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  What is his age or what was his age at the

 3     relevant time?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know.  But in my estimate,

 5     he could have been between 35 and 40; around 35.  Never gave it any

 6     thought.

 7             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  What was his ethnicity?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Serb.

 9             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

11             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, I was a little late with it, but if

12     counsel can please watch the leading nature of any questions.

13             MR. LUKIC:  I just corrected it.  The Prosecution interviewed

14     Mr. Krsmanovic --

15             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic.

17             MR. LUKIC:  So if you need more data --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  No, Mr. Lukic, no need to comment on the questions

19     put by Judge Fluegge.  And if you think that you should refresh the

20     memory of a witness, you should clearly announce that rather than to lead

21     the witness.

22             Please proceed.

23             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

24             Can we move to D00240, please.  At the end of the day yesterday,

25     we talked about the case from 22 June, 1995, Cetinjska Street, 12.  We

Page 39546

 1     saw figure 97 from the report, and now we'll just see the police report

 2     about the same incident.  We need page 7 in English version and page 9 in

 3     B/C/S.  In B/C/S, it's the first paragraph; and, in English, it's the

 4     third paragraph from the bottom.

 5        Q.   [Interpretation] In the police report, it says that it involves

 6     an improvised combat device based on a rocket motor, the rocket called

 7     Grad, calibre 122 millimetres, and the warhead is probably HE M107

 8     Howitzer projectile, calibre 155 millimetres.

 9             Does this report of the Sarajevo police coincide with your

10     findings?

11        A.   For the most part, it coincides with our findings, except that we

12     checked a certain direction of fire, and it is somewhat different to the

13     direction of fire determined by the police.

14        Q.   Thank you.

15        A.   But it's very close.

16        Q.   You mean the direction?

17        A.   Yes, that's what I mean.  It's -- our direction is very close to

18     the one determined by the Sarajevo police.

19        Q.   Thank you.  I should now like to move to an incident of 16

20     June 1995 in Cobanija, number 7.  In English, it's on page 192; and in

21     B/C/S, it's page 174.

22             On that day, according to the Official Note, an air bomb exploded

23     on the building of a thermal power station.  Concerning this incident,

24     the Prosecution tendered P933 and P1100, and Mr. Turkusic and

25     Mr. Suljevic discussed these documents in their statements.

Page 39547

 1             Could we now see on the screen, figure 111 which, in English, is

 2     on page 195 and in B/C/S, 178.

 3             How far is it between the boiler room which was hit by the

 4     modified air bomb, allegedly?

 5        A.   We didn't measure it, but it's approximately 20 by 20 metres, not

 6     more.

 7             MR. LUKIC:  Only for the record, it was entered between the

 8     boiler room, I think I said in front of the boiler room.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  But even how far something is in front of doesn't

10     make sense.  A distance is measured between two points, which two points

11     did have you in mind, Mr. Lukic?

12             MR. LUKIC:  It's not between.  I said in front.  That's what I

13     was correcting.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  The same is true for in front.  If I say in front of

15     a building, how far is that.  Or did you mean to say how far was what it

16     was I do not know --

17             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter apologises.  The way Mr. Lukic

18     started the sentence, I didn't understand.  He said how much space.

19             MR. LUKIC: [Previous translation continues] ... how much space

20     can we find in front of that boiler room.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, you mean free space or?  I mean, what is space?

22     Space is endless.  I have before me 40.000 kilometres of space.  Well,

23     that's the surrounding of the earth.  Could you please --

24             MR. LUKIC:  I didn't go that far, Your Honour.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  I do understand that.  But try to express yourself

Page 39548

 1     in such a way so that we understand the evidence is which are you

 2     eliciting.  Do you mean space up to the next building or ...

 3             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 4        Q.   What kind of space are we talking about, Ms. Subotic?

 5        A.   I understood that I was asked how much space there is outside the

 6     boiler room, limited by the building opposite on both sides.  And I

 7     answered 20 by 20.  That's my estimate.

 8        Q.   In the case of a descent of a modified air bomb, where should one

 9     find the motor?

10        A.   The motor is found on the point of impact, on the site of

11     landing, and that's what we saw yesterday.  In all the documentation, in

12     all the sketches, it's at the place where the bomb hit, where the

13     explosion occurred.  Yesterday we looked at a very illustrative picture,

14     figure 97.

15        Q.   Was the motor found in this case?

16        A.   No, not -- not the motor and not the chamber.

17        Q.   What does that mean?

18        A.   We determined that no rocket-propelled modified air bomb fell in

19     this case because the motor wasn't found or the other components either.

20        Q.   Based on all the analysis you carried out, what is your

21     conclusion regarding the precision of these modified air bombs?

22        A.   My conclusion, based on our complete analysis, and that is also

23     shown in table number 5 on page 199, is that the precision of these

24     modified air bombs is at the level of all the systems of rocket

25     artillery.  We have a very good illustrative example for this which could

Page 39549

 1     be considered as experimental on such a small sample; namely, the

 2     television was targeted once and hit.  It was targeted once again a month

 3     later, and it was hit again.  Concerning number 13, the surveying

 4     institute which was hit, it fell, we said, 50 metres away but it's

 5     certainly not 50 metres because next to the surveying institute there is

 6     a six-lane street and one curb, so in three attempts, targeting one

 7     target at different times from different directions, the target was hit.

 8     So based on everything we analysed, I believe that this system is within

 9     the norms of all the systems of rocket artillery.

10             MR. LUKIC:  Only for the record, that table we can find on

11     page 218 in English version.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  If I can just ask a question for clarification,

13     Mr. Lukic.

14             Ma'am, you said that you found -- you determined that there was

15     no rocket-propelled modified air bomb that fell on day you went and

16     investigated.  When did you go and investigate?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, I didn't say that I

18     investigated.  Maybe it's a matter of interpretation.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... record what

20     you are transcribed as having said:  "We determined that no rocket

21     propelled modified air bomb fell in this case because the motor wasn't

22     found on -- or the other components either."

23             Who -- who didn't find the motor?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The investigating group of the CSB

25     which provided a set of photographs from the site --

Page 39550

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ...

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We worked with their photo

 3     documentation to make our analysis.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  I have another question in follow-up.  In your

 6     experience, did you ever find a modified air bomb not hitting what was

 7     targeted?  Or coming to that.  So a failure to ...

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Based on these cases that we

 9     analysed, we provided the exact distance --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  I was asking whether you ever came across a complete

11     failure to hit what may have been targeted by a modified air bomb.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, two cases.  One, when an air

13     bomb hit the edge of a privately owned house and hit the ground after

14     that obstacle and ended up in Bunicki Potok [phoen] I believe is the name

15     where it eventually landed after that, conditionally speaking, ricochet.

16     And another case in Cetinjska Street when it hit the edge of a building

17     at the level of the ninth floor without reaching its target.  Those are

18     the two incidents.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, are they described in your report?  I just

20     don't remember.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, we discussed them

22     yesterday -- I mean, we discussed the ninth floor incident.  The other

23     one is not in the indictment, so Counsel Lukic did not even ask me with

24     this.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  So the ninth floor incident was a clear failure, due

Page 39551

 1     ricochet only or due to imprecision?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We determined direction based on

 3     the impact of the explosion on the building and the direction was good.

 4     However, that position which occurred on the trajectory could not have

 5     been foreseen.  I mentioned it yesterday, this building is only 15 metres

 6     higher than the target and the hit was on the ninth floor.  So if you

 7     look at it from the side, it's exactly the corner of the building that

 8     was hit, so we should consider that such a obstacle could not have been

 9     foreseen by the gunner, and I would not ascribe this to imprecision

10     because the direction was good.  In other words, if that building had not

11     been there at that altitude, the projectile would have reached the

12     target.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  The one you said is not in the indictment.  Isn't it

14     true that some of the incidents you dealt with in your reports were not

15     in the indictment?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We did work with documents that are

17     not covered by the indictment and they're all provided in the report, but

18     we just didn't discuss them here.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, you explained that one of the failures

20     that you did not deal with that because it was not in the indictment, as

21     you said, "so Counsel Lukic did not even ask me about this."

22             Does that mean that you have limited yourself to what Mr. Lukic

23     asked you to look at and you didn't deal with any other incidents or

24     experiences which might shed light on, for example, precision?

25                           [Trial Chamber confers]

Page 39552

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know if I expressed myself

 2     explicitly.  We did deal with cases that are not in the indictment, and

 3     we dealt with all the cases for which we had material, and a kind of

 4     summary is given in table 6 on the following page.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, there may indeed have been some

 6     misunderstanding.

 7             My -- the gist of my question is:  In your experience as an

 8     expert, did you ever come across modified air bombs when -- which were

 9     launched with a complete failure of reaching what was supposed to be the

10     target?  Flying wherever but not coming any close even to the intended

11     target.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, are you asking me about

13     my experience with this court or about my experience as a forensic expert

14     in general?  You must understand, in peacetime conditions, a forensic

15     expert does not have experience with this kind of projectile.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  No, it's -- it's your experience but not necessarily

17     limited to any question that was asked to you in this court, and I'm

18     focussing on modified air bombs that were launched during the armed

19     conflict.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We did not find here any bomb that

21     was launched in all the cases that we had at our disposal, we didn't find

22     any bomb that was launched and then behaved as a technical product with a

23     defect that would make us think or suspect there was something wrong

24     technically with it.  And as you see in table 6, all these 16 projectiles

25     that were launched to different extents and percentages, conform with the

Page 39553

 1     standards of ballistic requirements for a given system.  In this system,

 2     dispersion by direction and distance is a bit higher, which is normal,

 3     because this is a rocket system, a guided one.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

 5             Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do apologise.

 7             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   Ms. Subotic, I'm on my feet just to thank you once again for

 9     having responded to our questions.

10        A.   Thank you.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Lukic.

12             Ms. Subotic you'll now be cross-examined by Mr. Weber.  You find

13     Mr. Weber to your right.  Mr. Weber is counsel for the Prosecution.

14             Please proceed.

15                           Cross-examination by Mr. Weber:

16             MR. WEBER:  Good morning, Your Honours.

17        Q.   Good morning, Ms. Subotic.

18        A.   Good morning.

19        Q.   Mirjana Andjelkovic Lukic was one of the contributors to your

20     modified air bomb report; right?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   She also worked at the military technical institute; correct?

23        A.   During a certain period of time, she worked at the military

24     technical institute, and then she continued her career at the technical

25     experimental centre, and from there, she retired.

Page 39554

 1        Q.   During the war, in her position at the technical centre, she

 2     worked in the specific section for the testing and verification of

 3     munitions; correct?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   You relied on her contributions as part of your report in this

 6     case; right?

 7        A.   Yes, but from a different aspect that primarily referred to the

 8     effects of bombs and how they affected space.  We had a report by

 9     Mr. Zecevic that is not well argumented and not well founded, and he

10     claimed that the spaces, the one that is affected, Ms. Andjelkovic's

11     contribution was invaluable there because that is exactly her line of

12     work.

13        Q.   Yesterday you discussed the testing and possible existence of

14     firing tables for modified air bombs.  You even suggested at transcript

15     page 39540 that we could get the tables through your institute.  The

16     testing you described did not happen, and these tables do not exist at

17     your institute; right?

18        A.   I do apologise, but it's a bit difficult for me to follow what

19     you're saying.  The tables were from 2002.  Sorry, I checked that when I

20     went back to the hotel.  2002, they do exist and they're no different to

21     those that we discussed from the 1990s, in terms of their results and

22     parameters that have to do with precision.  They just include a larger

23     number of projectiles.

24             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 33121 for

25     the witness.  And if we could please go to e-court page 40.

Page 39555

 1        Q.   Coming up before you will be Ms. Andjelkovic Lukic's, your

 2     co-author's testimony from the Karadzic case.  I'm going to start at line

 3     13.  Ms. Andjelkovic Lukic was asked:

 4             "Q.  Doctor I am -- my question is about the testing of modified

 5     air bombs systems.  I would like to you answer with a simple yes or no

 6     whether, during your period at the military technical institute and in

 7     the course of your conversations and dealings with your colleagues at the

 8     military technical institute, did you hear of testing of modified air

 9     bombs by that institute?  I need a verbal response, please."

10             Her answer was:  "No, no, no, I did not, because it is certain

11     that if I had heard about that or if that had been done, it certainly

12     would have come to me for verification, or I would have been made aware

13     of it.  I never had that on my desk.  That is a fact."

14             Do you accept your co-author's statement on this matter as the

15     truth?

16        A.   My colleague gave you an answer and since that is what is

17     recorded, for me that is a truthful answer.  I'm sure, I assume no one

18     wrote down anything that she had not said.

19        Q.   A projectile --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic.

21             MR. LUKIC:  I would like my colleague to tell what kind of bombs

22     were discussed in this instance.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, that perhaps may be --

24             MR. LUKIC:  Because it's not the same.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  -- In re-examination a matter you wish to raise what

Page 39556

 1     this exactly means.

 2             MR. LUKIC:  Then we need the reference is from this was read

 3     from [Overlapping speakers] ...

 4             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, I've given it and I think this is kind

 5     of an improper intervention.

 6             MR. LUKIC:  Okay.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, I think Mr. Weber has given the 65 ter

 8     number and it's page 31505 from, if I understand you well, the Karadzic

 9     case.

10             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.  As you know, we are still

11     missing the documents.  It takes some time that we get the documents when

12     the cross starts so that's why I cannot follow.  So I apologise.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Well --

14                           [Trial Chamber confers]

15             JUDGE ORIE:  It's at this moment on the screen.

16             MR. LUKIC:  I mean the actual document I don't have with me

17     so ...

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then I take it --

19             MR. LUKIC:  The transcript from Karadzic.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Apart --

21             MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers] ...

22             JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... it's a public transcript

23     anyhow, so if it would assist you during the next break that that even

24     can be found on the Internet, if you want to scroll through it in the way

25     you wish to approach it.

Page 39557

 1             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  But, for the time being, I think we can proceed.

 3             Please, Mr. Weber.

 4             MR. WEBER:

 5        Q.   A projectile goes through a significant amount of testing before

 6     a final firing table is created; right?

 7        A.   Correct.

 8        Q.   Yesterday at transcript page 39539, when you were discussing the

 9     existence of firing tables from modified air bombs, His Honour

10     Judge Fluegge asked you:  "Before the testing you saw them?"

11             You answered:  "Yes."

12             Your testimony about the existence of firing tables for modified

13     air bombs is not true; correct?

14        A.   No.  Although my answer is true, the one that I provided today,

15     the one I provided yesterday is correct as well.  This is what it's all

16     about.  When a new system is being developed, any system, in order to

17     start testing in the first place temporary firing tables have to be made.

18     They are made on the basis of our knowledge and experience that we have

19     from our work on previous systems.  So whoever starts the testing for the

20     first time already has a document in his or her hands called temporary

21     firing tables.  Now, whether that is the same as final firing tables that

22     depends on everything that is written down in the meantime and possible

23     corrections that are made on these temporary firing tables, and that is

24     how the final product is attained.  That is to say, that I had to have

25     firing tables in my hands before any kind of initial testing so that

Page 39558

 1     those who do the testing can embark upon it.  That's the procedure.

 2             My colleague did not say anything that was incorrect.  There may

 3     have been no final testing that had reached her.  The firing tables did

 4     have to exist even before any kind of initial testing is carried out on

 5     any one of the testing grounds.

 6        Q.   Today, you have been confronted about the statements of your

 7     co-author and the statement that you made yesterday.  This is now another

 8     version that you are coming up with; correct?

 9        A.   This is not yet another version.  We did not discuss this.  I did

10     have firing tables.  My colleague would get the final testing, if that

11     did take place.  Sorry, I'm not saying that I made this.  But whoever

12     goes out for testing must have firing tables for the first projectile

13     that would be fired during testing.  Otherwise, this person would not

14     have parameters.

15             This is procedure, and there is nothing inconsistent there.

16        Q.   At transcript page 39317, you were asked about the possibility of

17     firing two shells from one 76-millimetre cannon within an interval of a

18     couple of seconds.  You answered:  "Usually one minute is required,

19     normally about one minute is required but the firings allegedly happen

20     much faster."

21             A 76-millimetre cannon can actually fire many more rounds per

22     minute than you describe?

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, could you quote the full answer of the

24     witness gave yesterday before you put it to her, because I think the

25     one-minute limit was not the only thing she said about it.  Just from my

Page 39559

 1     recollection something about a crew.

 2             MR. WEBER:  Yes.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes [Overlapping speakers] ... in all fairness to

 4     the witness.

 5             MR. WEBER:  I'll paraphrase.

 6        Q.   And you did give an indication that this could depend on the crew

 7     that was operating the cannon.

 8             My question to you is that a 76-millimetre cannon can actually

 9     fire more rounds per minute than you describe; right?

10        A.   You probably read some characteristic that is there.  We say that

11     a certain weapon can follow -- can fire 1.000 bullets per minute, but

12     when it actually happens, this does not occur.

13             I'm sure that within a few seconds, when these two explosions

14     occurred, two projectiles cannot be followed -- cannot be fired in

15     succession following one another.  There has to be another round of

16     firing, charge and fire.  So it's different from infantry weapons for

17     special units.  Then three projectiles are fired randomly.  In this case,

18     there is targeting, and I would not agree that somebody fired at a

19     particular target twice within a few seconds, as witnesses have said.

20     That is illogical.

21             MR. WEBER:  Could we please have 65 ter 33234 for the witness.

22        Q.   These are the firing tables for a 76-millimetre M48 B1 cannon.

23     If we could go to page 4, the lower part of the B/C/S, and page 4 of the

24     English translation.

25             This is the section from the tables regarding rate of fire and we

Page 39560

 1     see in the top paragraph, the paragraph 12, that it does depend on the

 2     level of the training of the crew.  And then we see that there's a table

 3     number 4 related to the permitted rate of fire.

 4             Directing your attention to this table, the top row appears to

 5     indicate that it's one for shooting duration in minutes; and the bottom

 6     row indicates for number of bullets per weapon.

 7             According to this chart, a 76-millimetre cannon can fire up to 25

 8     rounds in a minute; correct?

 9        A.   But look at what it says up here.  That the elements have to be

10     checked after each and every firing.  Perhaps you believe that all of

11     that is possible, but I told you, you probably found some table, and you

12     did, indeed.

13             So this is one minute, then 25 number of bullets per weapon; I

14     agree with you that that is what is written there.  However, if you take

15     into account the practical situation, these are certain maximums that are

16     being allowed for in case the barrels do not overheat and are not damaged

17     in a more permanent way.

18        Q.   Have you ever been deployed as part of an artillery crew

19     operating a cannon during combat operations?

20        A.   No.  I was always deployed in crews that conduct testing weapons

21     and ammunition.  If you're asking me if I was an officer ever, the answer

22     is no.  If you're asking me if I ever took part in the war, my answer is

23     no.  I don't know how else I'm to understand this question of yours.

24             MR. WEBER:  The Prosecution tenders 65 ter 33234 into evidence.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

Page 39561

 1             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 33234 receives exhibit number P7547,

 2     Your Honours.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  P7547 is admitted into evidence.

 4             MR. WEBER:

 5        Q.   On the 29th and 30th of September, you made a number of comments

 6     about the ability to rotate the base primary charge at the base of the

 7     stabiliser, or a stabiliser, and the amount of force needed to fasten or

 8     unscrew it.  At transcript page 39485, you stated:  "It requires a great

 9     amount of force that cannot be exercised by hand either before or after

10     the explosion, when it comes to trying to unscrew the tail-fin."

11             You went on to say that based on your technical knowledge in the

12     area:  "I couldn't even think it could be just unscrewed."

13             You also said:  "A complete shell is the result of manufacturing

14     with the base charge being screwed into the body of the stabiliser."

15             You further explained the day before, at transcript page 39429:

16     "When the shell is manufactured, the base charge is screwed in by using

17     tools and a lot of force.  The actual screw is lubricated by a type of

18     cement, particular cement, which provides for further contact."

19             These statements are not accurate; correct?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   Just so I don't misunderstand your answer.  When you're saying --

22     are you acknowledging that you've provided inaccurate statements or are

23     you standing by the statements you previously made?

24        A.   I stand by what I said earlier on.

25             MR. LUKIC:  For the record, the answer was yes they were accurate

Page 39562

 1     actually.

 2             MR. WEBER:  Okay.

 3             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, "su" [phoen].  The answer was not "da."

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Mr. Lukic, I appreciate your assistance.  At

 5     the same time, you're not supposed to tell what the answer was.  But in

 6     this case, perhaps, if that's what you heard, I think there's no major

 7     objection to assisting in this way, but it shouldn't become routine.

 8             Please proceed.

 9             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour, I intervened after Ms. Subotic

10     answered to the question.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  As I said, it's acceptable under the present

12     circumstances.

13             Please proceed.

14             MR. WEBER:

15        Q.   The fact is, is that it is nowhere near as difficult as you make

16     it seem.  Even mortar crews can insert the basic charge at the base of

17     the stabiliser themselves; right?

18        A.   Yesterday after my testimony, I saw a video-clip from the Krusik

19     factory that manufactures these 120-millimetre shells and we can see

20     exactly what the final projectile looks like and how it is tested.  I saw

21     this video-clip.  I downloaded it, and I can even show it to you.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Would you please first answer the question that

23     Mr. Weber put to you, whether a crew can screw a base charge on a

24     tail-fin at the mortar -- at the position where the mortar crew is.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I find this information to be

Page 39563

 1     totally foreign, because the stabiliser and shell is delivered in

 2     complete form with the basic charge, as I've already mentioned during my

 3     testimony, and all six charges are there, all the six additional ones and

 4     then they take them off or put them on, depending on the charge that they

 5     wish to use.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, so the simple answer is that you think it's not

 7     correct what Mr. Weber says that you can screw them on and off, that it

 8     cannot be done by the mortar battery crew itself.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, no, because there's no need

10     to do that.  It is provided delivered in completed form.  Screwed on.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness, would you please answer the question and

12     not a question which was not put to you.  The question was not put to you

13     whether a mortar battery crew would be in need of doing that, whether

14     there was any reason to do it, but the question was whether they can do

15     it.

16             Could you please answer that question.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If they'd assemble it there on the

18     ground, then probably they can do it.  But then they'd have to get it in

19     separate parts, which is absolutely impossible.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Weber.

21             MR. WEBER:

22        Q.   Are you aware of what the mortar manuals and tables say regarding

23     the insertion of the basic primary charge into the stabiliser?

24        A.   No, but we can take a look at that together.  I mean, I haven't

25     read that part.  I usually deal with the numerical part of tables.

Page 39564

 1             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 33239 for

 2     the witness.  Page 6 of the B/C/S and page 5 of the English translation.

 3        Q.   This is an excerpt from the firing tables for a 120-millimetre

 4     light mortar.  Before you is paragraph 78 which addresses the handling of

 5     the shells.  The section explains how the ammunition should be prepared

 6     for firing and, in the second paragraph, about three bullet points down,

 7     it states:  "Opening the boxes in which fuses and powder charges are

 8     kept."

 9             And then about three additional points down from that, it states:

10     "Pressing the basic powder charges into the spaces in the bodies of the

11     stabilisers, if the charges are not already screwed in or positioned."

12             Seeing this, the fact is that a mortar crew can insert and screw

13     in the basic charge to a stabiliser themselves; right?

14        A.   These are old tables that envisaged that possibility, that is to

15     say, for the base powder charge not to be in the stabiliser already.

16     However, for decades how, people haven't been doing it that way.

17             MR. WEBER:  The Prosecution would tender this document into

18     evidence.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

20             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 33239 receives Exhibit P7548,

21     Your Honours.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

23             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, I see that we're at the time for a

24     possible break.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  At the time for a break.  We'll resume in 20 minutes

Page 39565

 1     from now.  The witness may follow the usher.

 2             We'll resume at ten minutes to 11.00.

 3                           [The witness stands down]

 4                           --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.

 5                           --- On resuming at 10.54 a.m.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, may I ask your attention for the

 7     following matter.  There are still a few attestations, I take it, to be

 8     obtained by the Defence.  The Defence is invited to co-ordinate with the

 9     Registry that if a presiding officer is needed for the attestation that

10     it's better to use the presence of Registry staff and co-ordinate so that

11     there's no need to -- for extra travel and that's more efficient and

12     cost-saving.

13             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour.  We were already informed that we

14     should gather our people in the field.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And co-ordinate and discuss the matter with

16     the Registry.

17                           [The witness takes the stand]

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, you may proceed.

19             MR. WEBER:  Thank you, Your Honours.

20        Q.   Okay, Ms. Subotic, I'm going to now start -- oh.

21             Are you able to hear me?

22        A.   [In English] Yes, okay.  Yes.

23        Q.   I'm now --

24        A.   [Interpretation] Now I've put them on.  Sorry.

25        Q.   I'm now going to start by going over some general items with you.

Page 39566

 1             Did you personally author all three of the reports or did anyone

 2     else write any portions of the reports besides yourself?

 3        A.   Just as we signed the reports, all who participated in their

 4     making are signed on them.  And I mean the three reports that I discussed

 5     in the previous days were done by Mr. Poparic and I.  And this part

 6     concerning air bombs were co-authored also by

 7     Mrs. Mirjana Andjelkovic Lukic.

 8        Q.   Did any of those other individuals author portions of the report

 9     besides yourself; if so, what portions?

10        A.   All the parts of the reports and all the stages were co-authored

11     between us.  We worked jointly on all of them.  And including all the

12     analyses.  We did it all together.

13        Q.   Okay.

14        A.   These documents passed through several stages before they reached

15     you, and we worked on them jointly.

16        Q.   Did you, independently, reach all of the conclusions in the three

17     reports that you have testified to?

18        A.   All of us individually separately came to the conclusion which we

19     then finalised, discussing whether it's the best technical solution, and

20     that's how it came to its final shape.

21        Q.   That means that you personally agreed with all of the conclusions

22     in the report, based on your own analysis?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   Did you personally review all of the materials referenced in the

25     footnotes of the reports?

Page 39567

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   Last week, at transcript page 39129, you commented on a

 3     correction sheet at the outset of your testimony and stated:  "We put in

 4     some corrections that we believe clarify the document."

 5             Who are you referring to when you say "we"?

 6        A.   My colleague Mr. Poparic and I.

 7        Q.   How did these corrections come to your attention?

 8        A.   I noticed while preparing at home that it would be better, more

 9     convenient, to show it that way, and I discussed it with my colleague,

10     Mr. Poparic, all these things that I noticed, and then we jointly made

11     the corrections that we made.

12        Q.   I want now to move on to your qualifications.  You are not a

13     forensic pathologist or medical practitioner; correct?

14        A.   No, I'm not.

15             MR. WEBER:  And, Your Honour, I see that the transcript may not

16     have recorded my last phrase there, when I said "medical practitioner."

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but at least it's now on the record.

18             MR. WEBER:

19        Q.   Are you not a military expert?

20        A.   I don't know what you understand under the term "military

21     expert."

22             If you mean tactician, that I am not.

23        Q.   You are not a trained lawyer.

24        A.   No.

25        Q.   You are not an explosives expert?

Page 39568

 1        A.   Expert, no, but I studied them in great detail in my university.

 2        Q.   You were employed at the military technical institute in Belgrade

 3     between 1974 and 2010; correct?

 4        A.   2009.

 5        Q.   Thank you for the correction.  You worked in the research and

 6     development department at the institute?

 7        A.   That entire institute deals with the research and development.  I

 8     worked in the sector for classical weapons, the section of ballistics.

 9        Q.   Your job was to develop new weapons or improve the performance of

10     existing weapons systems; correct?

11        A.   Yes.

12             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction:  Conventional

13     weapons, instead of classical.

14             MR. WEBER:

15        Q.   You did not conduct any crater analyses during your 35 years of

16     employment at the military institute in Belgrade; right?

17        A.   In the sense in which they are dealt with in this report, no.

18     But in terms of their action and impact with a view to improvement, I

19     certainly did.

20        Q.   Not sure what you're saying there.  A crater analysis being an

21     analysis of a crater after an explosion, you did not do that during your

22     35 years of employment at the technical institute; correct?

23        A.   We analysed craters in terms of its impact and effects, not in

24     the sense that was necessary to determine the direction of descent and

25     parameters related to the analyses we discussed here.

Page 39569

 1             Have I answered your question?

 2        Q.   I understand you better now.  But just so we're clear, you did

 3     not conduct any forensic crater analyses?

 4        A.   No.

 5        Q.   The only crater analyses that you have attempted to forensically

 6     conduct were the ones you did in 2010 for the purpose of your reports in

 7     the Karadzic case; correct?

 8        A.   Right.

 9        Q.   You have never analysed a freshly formed crater in person;

10     correct?

11        A.   Correct.

12        Q.   You have never been to the scene of a mortar explosion

13     immediately following a detonation where individuals were either killed

14     or injured; correct?

15        A.   Right.

16        Q.   In your CV, you list a number of reports you completed for courts

17     in Serbia.  These reports were in cases involving domestic charges for

18     crimes like murder, involuntary manslaughter, and unlawful possession of

19     weapons; right?

20        A.   Correct.  I said a moment ago that those cases analysed in peace

21     time, circumstances are different to those that we are analysing here.

22        Q.   With the exception of three cases in Serbia, the type of weapon

23     at issue was a small-arms weapon, such as a gun or a rifle; correct?

24        A.   Correct.  In fact, I don't know whether it's with the exception

25     of three cases.  You know better at this moment because have you an

Page 39570

 1     overview.  There are 150 findings there, after all.  I don't know what's

 2     contained in them off the cuff.

 3        Q.   With the exception -- sorry.

 4             None of your previous reports in Serbia relate to the use of a

 5     mortar or modified air bomb; correct?

 6        A.   Correct.

 7             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 33116.  And

 8     if we could go to page 76, please.

 9        Q.   Yesterday at transcript page 39479, you indicated that you took

10     part in police investigations many times.  Before you is your testimony

11     in the Karadzic case.  Starting at line 7, you were asked:

12             "Q.  Okay.  It's clear from your CV and your publications that

13     you have significant experience in the area of ballistics, but I don't

14     see anything in your CV about any publication [sic] in the area of crime

15     scene investigations.  You haven't published in the area of crime scene

16     investigation, have you?"

17             Your answer:  "That's not correct.  That's not correct.  In my

18     CV, there are more than 100 findings which were made for courts, and in

19     each of these I did visit the crime scene.  I don't know how you missed

20     that."

21             Are these the investigations you took part in?

22        A.   Yes.  It's customary in our country for the investigating judge

23     to bring an expert to an on-site investigation, to ensure that data

24     collection is done the best way possible.  So I went out together with

25     the investigative judge.  I cannot count all the times now, but those

Page 39571

 1     were, many, many times.

 2        Q.   Just so we have a little bit more clarity, Ms. Subotic, as you

 3     might have guessed, we do have your previous reports from Serbia, you did

 4     not visit the crime scenes for each of these cases; right?

 5        A.   Not in each these cases.  But if you looked at it carefully,

 6     wherever my findings cover reconstruction, I was there on the scene.

 7     Wherever there is an item called reconstruction and comparison of data

 8     with statements, that means I was on the scene.

 9             I cannot really give you a better answer from this position now

10     because I cannot know at this moment how many times out of the total it

11     was.

12        Q.   At transcript page 39191 in this case, you stated that physical

13     evidence "is the only relevant evidence as far as my profession is

14     concerned."

15             You understand that physical evidence refers to tangible material

16     objects or items; right?

17        A.   Right.

18        Q.   Do you consider a photograph or video of an object or an area to

19     be physical evidence?

20        A.   In this case, I do have to consider that because I was not there

21     on the scene.  The video and photo material about effects at the target

22     were taken into account by me as an expert as material evidence.

23        Q.   Should we understand your testimony over the past week when you

24     were discussing physical evidence that you may be referring to, then,

25     photographs or videos?

Page 39572

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   If an explosive device such as an artillery shell or mortar round

 3     is detonated remotely - in other words, not by an impact - that is going

 4     to require, one, a secondary detonating device to be attached to the

 5     shell or round; and, two, a secondary explosive charge to cause the

 6     detonation; correct?

 7        A.   Generally speaking, yes.

 8        Q.   There would be physical remnants at the scene of an explosion

 9     from the secondary devices attached to the shell found at or near the

10     scene; correct?

11        A.   In principle, yes.  But with these electrical initiations, these

12     are symbolic amounts, so they are not always found.

13        Q.   If things were not found, you cannot tell us that those things

14     ever existed; correct?

15        A.   Certainly not.

16        Q.   I'd like to move on to a different topic?

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  May I put one question at this point in time.

18             MR. WEBER:  Of course, Your Honour.

19             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Ms. Subotic, you heard two different terms:

20     Physical evidence and material evidence.  Is there any difference between

21     the two, in your view?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At this moment in this answer, I

23     mean, the Prosecutor used the term physical evidence.  When I say

24     material evidence, I speak of the evidence from the crime scene in the

25     documentation that I used.  And physical evidence is, for instance, the

Page 39573

 1     stabiliser we held in our hands yesterday.

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  In your report, we very often came across the

 3     term physical evidence.  Is that only such an artefact like we had in our

 4     hands, or is the term to be understood in a broader way?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If what you say is true and I am

 6     afraid it's a matter of translation, I will check this afternoon, but I

 7     believe we used the term material evidence, not physical.  I will look

 8     through my reports and I will see if it is perhaps a matter of

 9     translation.

10             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Then it has to be checked because in the English

11     translation, in the English translation of your report, I came across the

12     term physical evidence quite frequently.

13             Mr. Weber.

14             MR. WEBER:  Thank you, Your Honours.

15        Q.   Changing topics.  You are aware that the BiH MUP and

16     internationals who investigated shell impacts used what is known as the

17     central axis method to determine direction of fire; correct?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   The accuracy of this method determines the direction of fire

20     within a margin of error of plus or minus 5 degrees and maybe as much as

21     10 degrees, depending on the area impacted and the quality of the traces

22     on the ground; correct?

23        A.   That is correct.  I believe this plus/minus 10 is a very wide

24     margin.  I think the margin is smaller.  Because the traces are generally

25     very good, if there are any.  But if it's earth or a very difficult

Page 39574

 1     surface, then you are right, the margin may be wider.

 2        Q.   The central axis method is the best method of determining the

 3     incoming trajectory of a shell unless you have a radar system to do it;

 4     right?

 5        A.   That's right.  And I believe it exists now, it's in use and this

 6     central axis method will not need to be used any longer.

 7        Q.   Ma'am, I appreciate that you wanted to add stuff sometimes.  If

 8     you could -- I want to move through, so if you could please listen to the

 9     question.

10             The BiH MUP investigators did not have a better method at their

11     disposal; right?

12        A.   Right.

13        Q.   Over time, the shrapnel marks or physical traces in the ground

14     caused by the projectile impact will erode and deteriorate; correct?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   This will make it harder to distinguish the markings from other

17     marks on the ground; correct?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   The erosion caused by weather or human traffic affects the

20     quality of the traces over time; right?

21        A.   Correct.

22        Q.   Because of these factors, it will become harder to determine the

23     central axis and overall size of a crater over time; correct?

24        A.   Yes, you are right.

25        Q.   If the physical traces of an impact were no longer there or were

Page 39575

 1     substantially altered, this would obviously impact the reliability of any

 2     measurements of these impacts over a decade later; correct?

 3        A.   That depends, of course, on the damage to the remaining traces

 4     and how reliable they are.  Some traces remain sufficiently reliable and

 5     can be used.  But generally speaking, that's correct.

 6        Q.   The ideal time to conduct a crater analysis is immediately or

 7     shortly after the impact; correct?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   You are most likely to get the best and most reliable results

10     when the crater is fresh; right?

11        A.   Right.

12        Q.   Direction of fire should be determined by an analysis of the

13     crater itself and not by the angles or directions of streets; correct?

14        A.   No, no, wait a minute.  Crater analysis is done based on the

15     traces on the surface left by the explosion.  However, these directions

16     that are determined are always oriented based on direction north or some

17     other point.  We had a case when Captain Verdy determined his 17 degrees

18     relative to direction north using as a landmark the building on Kupa when

19     he was working on the scene.

20        Q.   Is it your evidence that the direction of fire of a projectile

21     can be determined by the angle or directions of a street instead of the

22     physical traces of the crater itself?

23        A.   No.  My evidence is that the direction of fire is determined

24     based on physical traces of the crater itself and that direction has to

25     be relative to something, relative to the central axis of the crater

Page 39576

 1     compared to direction north or some other fixed point.

 2        Q.   The first time you -- the first time you went to the locations

 3     that are involved in this case was in September 2010, 15 to 18 years of a

 4     the explosions; correct?

 5        A.   Correct.

 6        Q.   Now, in terms of angle of descent, meaning -- what I'm referring

 7     to is the vertical angle between the flight path and the ground on

 8     impact, a minimum angle of descent can be reliably determined based on a

 9     distance to surrounding structures and buildings along an incoming

10     trajectory; correct?

11        A.   In principle, that is correct.  However, that way you could

12     determine the minimum angle of descent for a mortar projectile on the

13     basis of the building that is the closest to it, and that would be, say,

14     42 degrees.  And as far as mortar shells are concerned, there are no

15     angles of descent of less than 50 degrees.  So that is correct, but then

16     other things have to be taken into account.  So obstacles have to be

17     taken into account.  The ones that are the closest and the farthest from

18     the point of impact.

19        Q.   An approximate or rough estimate of the angle of descent can be

20     made by measuring the distance between the central part of the crater and

21     the outer peripheral traces; correct?

22        A.   You mean the distance between the first and second crown?  I

23     don't understand what you're asking me.

24        Q.   Yes, for example.  That would be an example of how to do that.

25     So where the actual crater impacts its central part and the outside

Page 39577

 1     crowns, as you're referring to them.  An estimate of the angle of descent

 2     can be made from that; correct?

 3        A.   That method does exist, the one that was used by investigators of

 4     the CSB, and it primarily uses traces on the ground left by the explosion

 5     and these distances that you spoke of between the centre of the explosion

 6     and the next crown as left by shrapnel, and, of course, the dimensions of

 7     the shell, and the explosive charge or the centre of the mass that they

 8     usually used probably because they don't know exactly where the centre of

 9     the explosion was because this defect that is taken into account is the

10     most pronounced, of course, in terms of the centre of explosion during

11     the fall.

12        Q.   Let's just see if we understand this similarly.

13             If the distance between the central part of the crater and the

14     outer peripheral traces is small, then this would suggest a steeper angle

15     of descent; correct?

16        A.   You mean an angle of almost 90 degrees?

17        Q.   No ... maybe I'll just give it you all at once and see if we

18     understand each other.

19             If the distance between the centre part of the crater and the

20     outer peripheral traces is small, then this would suggest a steeper or

21     more vertical angle of descent; where conversely if the distance between

22     the central part of the crater and the outer peripheral traces is larger,

23     then this would suggest a lower or less vertical angle of descent.  Do

24     you agree?

25        A.   That's what I said to you.  If the difference is small, then the

Page 39578

 1     angle of descent is close to 90 degrees compared to the surface and then

 2     if it is greater than it is an angle that is less than 90 degrees,

 3     depending on the distance of the second crown and what the parameters of

 4     the shell itself are, as I've already said.

 5        Q.   Accurate determinations of directions of fire and angles of

 6     descent cannot be made from a viewing of a photograph alone; correct?

 7        A.   On that basis, the results can be checked and then the other

 8     traces that the shell left when it exploded can be assessed pretty well.

 9        Q.   Accurate determinations of directions of fire and angles of

10     descent cannot be made from only a photograph; right?

11        A.   We did not have a better choice than that, and it turned out that

12     we were very close to accurate answers that corresponded to the

13     measurements on the ground in the immediate aftermath.  After the

14     explosion, that is.

15             If you remember, in each and every incident we had contrary

16     results and this photo documentation helped us a great deal, as did the

17     video material.  Helped us establish who was closest to the actual values

18     in view of the traces left by the shell after the explosion.

19        Q.   In your view, can an accurate determination of direction of fire

20     and an angle of descent be made from only a photograph?

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mladic is supposed not to speak aloud.

22             Mr. Mladic, no speaking aloud any further.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Within the tolerance provided by

24     the method itself.  And you already mentioned that at the very beginning.

25             MR. WEBER:

Page 39579

 1        Q.   So you would say that the -- a determination by a photograph

 2     alone would have the same margin of error as looking at the physical

 3     traces, plus or minus 5 degrees if the traces are clear in the photo, and

 4     then if they're not so clear, it's a bad photo, maybe a margin of error

 5     of 10 degrees.

 6             Is that what you're saying?

 7        A.   I want to say that the photograph that was made at the moment

 8     after the explosion is equally accurate if it was made properly and then

 9     there is also personal insight on the ground.  Because, do not forget,

10     that all of these photographs were taken immediately after the incident.

11     And that's what they're used for, so that after a while we can check and

12     determine whether somebody did that correctly on the spot.  Otherwise,

13     there wouldn't be any photo documentation, if there weren't for this need

14     to be able to check what an investigator did at the time, to check later,

15     that is.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness, could I ask you an explanation.

17             You were asked about the accuracy of determining a direction of

18     fire and an angle of descent from a photograph only.  And then you said -

19     let me just take at that literally - you said:  "We had no better choice,

20     and it turned out that we were very close to accurate answers that

21     corresponded to the measurements on the ground in the immediate

22     aftermath."

23             So what you're saying:  Our conclusions matched with the

24     conclusion reached at the time than explains the accuracy of our -- our

25     ability to accurately draw conclusions from photographs.

Page 39580

 1             Is that well understood?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were two questions there.

 3             First of all, you asked whether our conclusions correspond to

 4     those of the investigators.  With regard to many incidents, we had

 5     contrary findings amongst the investigators themselves.  For example,

 6     criminal -- do you understand what I'm saying?  And on the basis of that

 7     we managed to establish what was correct --

 8             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... I focussed on

 9     the first part of your answer, where you said:  We came to the same

10     conclusions as those who investigated on the ground, which then, if I

11     understood you well, was used as an argument that you could accurately

12     draw conclusions on the basis of photographs.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is correct that our results

14     almost always coincided with some of the findings offered during the

15     investigation.  Not always but almost always, and that works in support

16     of that.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  What's your conclusion from that fact?

18     Because you were asked about the accuracy of drawing conclusions from

19     photographs.

20             Now, what's your conclusion in relation to what you just told us,

21     that very often your findings were in accordance, were the same or almost

22     the same as those who did the investigation on the ground.  What does

23     that tell us?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said a moment ago that on the

25     basis of photographs that were made after the incident, immediately after

Page 39581

 1     the incident, we can carry out proper checks and we can check the

 2     measurements that were made by the investigators.

 3             Now what happened to us sometimes was that there were three or

 4     four results that were offered within the same investigation, and the

 5     photographs would help us establish who was right in terms of the traces

 6     that can be seen in the photograph, what matches that.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm not talking about events where there are more

 8     series of photographs but just one series of photographs.

 9             If there's a discrepancy between what you conclude and what those

10     who did the investigation on the ground conclude, what does that mean?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all, there are no

12     different photographs.  It is different findings that were offered to us.

13     Photographs were one and the same.  There is one photo documentation, and

14     we had one, two, three findings in terms of measurement, in terms of

15     positions taken.  We didn't have any different photographs, different

16     photo documentation except in one particular case.  But with the same

17     photo documentation, different interpretations were made.  There are

18     photographs there that were taken immediately after the explosion, and we

19     found that to be extremely helpful so that we could reach conclusions on

20     the basis of the traces that can be seen in the photo documentation.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, and if your conclusions are not the same as the

22     ones who did the investigation on the ground, what does that mean?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We always found an explanation as

24     to why the investigators came to an erroneous conclusion.  And in

25     different cases, there were different reasons, and we documented all of

Page 39582

 1     that in -- in -- in these papers of ours.  I mean, I can give you any

 2     example, if necessary, but I don't think it's necessary.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Have you considered that you may have made mistakes

 4     in interpreting the shrapnel pattern, for example, or the ...

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Whenever we had a dilemma like

 6     that - and we did have such dilemmas - we made a complete overview of a

 7     particular situation.  We tried to match all the information that we had.

 8     And on the basis of all of this information, in the records, in the

 9     on-site investigation, the sketch of the scene and so on, so when you put

10     all of that together, there is a clear and unambiguous answer.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You know?  I don't have any

13     dilemma.  When somebody writes in his record, That is such and such a

14     direction on the basis of that, and if no picture is taken that is

15     different.  However, if I take a picture ten years later and I see what

16     it's like, then I no longer have a dilemma as to what this looked like.

17     Because if that is what it looks like ten years later, then it was much

18     clearer and what had been written was the opposite.  Ten years before

19     that.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, so no doubt at all about your own accuracy in

21     doing this exercise.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

24             Please proceed, Mr. Weber.

25             MR. WEBER:

Page 39583

 1        Q.   When viewing a photograph, you are limited by the distance of the

 2     camera to the object being photographed and there may be perspective

 3     issues that make it difficult to determine angles; correct?

 4        A.   Yes.  That is why we used Google Earth, you see?  We would put a

 5     street where it was and then we would reduce the negative contribution of

 6     the camera to our estimate.

 7        Q.   Okay.  You agree that a photograph should not be manipulated or

 8     edited in such a manner that it distorts the content of the photo; right?

 9        A.   Of course.

10        Q.   All of the -- what you call crater analyses that you did for your

11     various reports were conducted either on the visits in 2010 or on the

12     basis of photographs or video stills of the sites or some combination of

13     those efforts; correct?

14        A.   Correct.

15        Q.   In your reports, have you included all of the photos that were

16     taken during your visit to Sarajevo in 2010, or are there any additional

17     photos that were not included in your report?

18        A.   There is an entire album.  It would have been too much if we

19     included everything in this report, although it is voluminous.  I

20     regretted that yesterday; namely, why we didn't include a photograph from

21     the Cobanija incident that was considerably clearer than the one we

22     looked at today.

23        Q.   You cannot get precise measurements from a street map; correct?

24     I'm talking about precise measurements.

25        A.   Sorry, precise measurement of what?

Page 39584

 1        Q.   You cannot get precise measurements based on street maps.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you --

 3             MR. WEBER:

 4        Q.   Distances of, let's say, a curb to a sidewalk, a curb to the

 5     building, the angle of a street, these types of things.  A street map

 6     might give you a general idea of such distances, but they would not be

 7     precise; right?

 8        A.   The distances were not determined on the basis of town maps but

 9     directions were on the basis of Google Earth and the angles are rather

10     precise.  I mean, the direction in terms of a particular building, say,

11     in relation to direction north.  That's what I'm trying to say.

12             We usually - not usually -- always took the distance from the

13     sketch of the scene itself.

14        Q.   Do you agree that you cannot get precise measurements based on a

15     street map?

16        A.   I would appreciate it if you would tell me what measurements.

17     Certainly not crater measurements.  But angles, streets, buildings in

18     relation to direction north, certainly.

19        Q.   Okay.  I think everyone understands that Google Earth is

20     satellite imagery.  That's not a street map; correct?  What I'm talking

21     about is a city street map.

22        A.   [No interpretation]

23        Q.   I'm sorry, I don't know if your answer was recorded.

24             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  We did not hear the

25     answer.

Page 39585

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know.  I'm not following.

 2     I'm saying I don't know.  I mean, my answer was that I cannot determine a

 3     distance or a direction or, rather, magnitude, say the magnitude of a

 4     crater using a street map that cannot be done.  However, directions, just

 5     directions of streets and buildings in relation to direction north, that

 6     can certainly be done.  That is certainly not being contested.

 7             MR. WEBER:

 8        Q.   It's come up before in your testimony, but for a lot of your

 9     descriptions of the incidents or for descriptions of incidents, where

10     you, for example, superimpose a sketch on top of a city street map and

11     then critique the direction or what you feel to have been the direction

12     that it should have been, why did you then not include the Google Earth

13     image, if that's what you were using?

14        A.   Some were with one, there wasn't really much of a difference,

15     some were with both.  It really wasn't a special reason to use this or

16     that.  In some cases we used both.  In some cases, perhaps it was more

17     direct to use a street map, a town map, because the names of streets are

18     there and also the names of buildings that were supposed to be

19     recognised.  Say, the wire factory we dealt with a few days ago or the TV

20     building, then we use a city map.  And sometimes we would check both.

21     Both Google Earth and a city map and then it would always match.  I mean,

22     we did not notice that there were any mistakes made in the city maps

23     themselves.

24             MR. WEBER:  Sorry, Your Honour, I see it's almost time for a

25     break, though.

Page 39586

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, we'd like to start a break in one or two

 2     minutes but if this would be a suitable moment, then we'll take the break

 3     now.

 4             MR. WEBER:  It is.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll take the break.  And we'd like to see you back

 6     in 20 minutes, Ms. Subotic.

 7                           [The witness stands down]

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  We resume at quarter past 12.00.

 9                           --- Recess taken at 11.53 a.m.

10                           --- On resuming at 12.16 p.m.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  One preliminary matter was announced.

12             MR. TIEGER:  Thank you, Mr. President.  May we go into private

13     session, please.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  We move in private session.

15                           [Private session]

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 39587

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3                           [Open session]

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in open session, Your Honours.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

 6                           [The witness takes the stand]

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Weber.

 8             MR. WEBER:  Thank you, Your Honours.

 9        Q.   Hi, Ms. Subotic.  The flight of any object through the atmosphere

10     will are affected by, one, the velocity with which it is launched into

11     its flight; two, the shape of the object; three, the mass of the object;

12     and, four, the environment in which the object is flying through,

13     including any meteorological conditions; is this correct?

14        A.   Yes.  There are other factors but I will come to it later.

15        Q.   We're going to discuss many incidents.

16             My next question.  Basic firing tables contain the adjustments

17     that need to be made for meteorological conditions, such as air

18     temperature, air pressure and humidity; correct?

19        A.   Correct.

20        Q.   Firing tables also contain the adjustments that take into account

21     other variables, such as cross-wind, headwind and tail-wind; correct?

22        A.   Correct.

23        Q.   The difference in altitude between the firing point and the

24     target is also relevant when making adjustments; right?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 39588

 1        Q.   The adjustments in the firing tables are specifically calculated

 2     to account for the mass of a projectile, its weight distribution, and the

 3     specific aerodynamics of the specific projectile's shape; correct?

 4        A.   I did not quite understand you -- the beginning of the question.

 5     What did you mean?  Did you mean that adjustments are made by taking into

 6     account all these things you enumerated or what?

 7             I did not understand the question.

 8        Q.   I'll just ask it without that part.

 9             The firing tables are specifically calculated to account for the

10     mass of a projectile, its weight distribution, and the specific

11     aerodynamics of the projectile's shape; correct?

12        A.   When you make firing tables, you make them for the so-called

13     normal mass of that projectile, which implies plus/minus one weight sign

14     which is simply calculated, and what is understood in the -- in terms of

15     trajectory.  It's all given to -- for that normal mass.  Adjustments are

16     made also taking into account dispersion in separate tables.  And it's

17     true that according to -- or, rather, on the basis of aerodynamics which

18     are calculated and measured, the trajectory of a projectile is

19     determined, depending on the elements you take into account.

20        Q.   If the parameters from the firing tables are taken into account,

21     there will be a high likelihood that the projectile will land on its

22     intended target; correct?

23        A.   Correct.

24        Q.   In a surface-to-surface situation, when a projectile is launched

25     from the ground with the aim of hitting another target on the ground, the

Page 39589

 1     total force imparted on the projectile both vertically and horizontally

 2     will impact where the projectile lands; correct?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   Just to be clear on this, provided the firing angle is the same,

 5     range depends upon the initial velocity.  For example, if the initial

 6     velocity of the projectile is greater, the projectile will travel

 7     farther; right?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   If you were firing a rocket-assisted projectile, you would need

10     to have precise firing tables in order to fire it with any degree of

11     accuracy; right?

12        A.   For every projectile that is fired, you need precise firing

13     tables.  This is a rocket-assisted projectile, the one we discussed, of a

14     type which has a very short operation of the motor compared to the total

15     time of flight, and after that, when they reach the end of their velocity

16     of the rocket motor they continue flying as any other projectile.  And

17     for every artillery projectile, whether rocket assisted or not, precise

18     firing tables are needed to hit the target.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, could you seek clarification.  "The one

20     we discussed, I think we dealt with quite a few incidents where --

21             MR. WEBER:  If I could try to clarify in the abstract.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

23             MR. WEBER:  And then see if she wants to --

24        Q.   Ms. Subotic, when you're referring to the one we discussed, are

25     you referring generally to modified air bombs with rockets on them?

Page 39590

 1        A.   I mean generally modified air bombs, because we did not cover any

 2     other rocket projectiles in this report.

 3             I'm sorry for being imprecise.

 4        Q.   I now want to talk to you about the embedding of mortar shells.

 5             82-millimetre and 120-millimetre mortar shells do not have the

 6     same launch velocities when launched with the same number of charges;

 7     right?

 8        A.   Correct.

 9        Q.   82-millimetre mortar shells are launched at a comparatively lower

10     velocity with the same number of charges; correct?

11        A.   Correct.

12        Q.   A basis physics hypothetical here:  If two objects of different

13     mass, one four times heavier than the other, are launched with the same

14     outbound velocity and both impact the same surface in terms of hardness,

15     the object with the greater mass is more likely to penetrate the surface

16     than the lighter object; correct?

17        A.   On the condition they arrived to the target at the identical

18     speed.  You know, mass and velocity behave differently, depending on

19     range.

20        Q.   Okay.  According to the tables, a 120-millimetre mortar shell has

21     a total mass with fuse of between 12 kilos, 280 grams, and 12 kilos, 600

22     grams and this is a light mortar, depending on the type of shell and

23     fuse.  An 82-millimetre mortar shell has a total mass with fuse of

24     between 3 kilos, 230 grams, and 3 kilos, 300 grams, also depending on the

25     type of shell and fuse.

Page 39591

 1             We'll go into this more specifically but just right now, a

 2     120-millimetre mortar shell is significantly heavier than an

 3     82-millimetre mortar shell; correct?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 33239,

 6     page 9 of the B/C/S only.  I believe this might have been admitted as

 7     P4548.  Yep.  And if we could to the right of this document, please have

 8     65 ter 33098A, page 10 of the B/C/S only.

 9        Q.   On the left, you have a table for a 120-millimetre light mortar

10     shell for charges 4 to 6.  On the right, you have a table for an

11     82-millimetre mortar shell for charges 4 to 6.

12             According to the chart on the left, for the 120-millimetre shell,

13     the firing velocity, or VO, at charge 4 is 256 metres per second;

14     correct?  I'm referring you to the top column for charge 4 or the top

15     row.

16        A.   Yes, correct.

17        Q.   According to the chart on the right for an 82-millimetre shell,

18     the firing velocity most similar is for charge 5 at 259 metres per

19     second; correct?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   We also see comparatively similar velocities for the respective

22     shells between charge 5 of the 120-millimetre shell and charge 4 of the

23     82-millimetre shell; correct?

24        A.   120 with charge 5 is --

25             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness be asked to speak more

Page 39592

 1     slowly.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness, could you speak more slowly so that the

 3     interpreters can catch your words.  And perhaps start your answer again.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Charge 5 for the 120-millimetre

 5     shell, the contact-fuse has the initial velocity of 290 per second.  And

 6     charge 5, 82-millimetre shell, has the initial velocity of 230.  That

 7     shell is M4.

 8             I suppose you wanted to compare the 120-millimetre shell with

 9     charge 5 with charge 4 in an 82-millimetre shell?  Am I right?

10             MR. WEBER:

11        Q.   Actually, no, and thank you for correcting me.  The

12     comparative -- charge 5 of the 120-millimetre shell would be similar in

13     velocity to charge 6 of the 82-millimetre; correct?

14        A.   Yes.  With the full level of initial velocity.

15        Q.   I put it to you that based on its greater mass and higher

16     outbound velocity on lower charges that a 120-millimetre mortar is more

17     likely to embed on charge 3 or greater than an 82-millimetre mortar;

18     correct?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   Due to its significantly lighter mass, much less explosive force

21     would also be required to kick back a stabiliser from an 82-millimetre

22     shell; right?

23        A.   Could you please repeat the question?  I didn't hear the

24     beginning.

25        Q.   Okay.  Due to its significantly lighter mass, much less explosive

Page 39593

 1     force - so when the mortar impacts and explodes - that -- less force

 2     would be required to push the stabiliser in a different direction or kick

 3     it back; correct?

 4        A.   The force necessary to kick back a stabiliser is, first of all,

 5     defined by the dimension of the stabiliser, which is built into steel.

 6     And, otherwise, these two shells have totally different explosive

 7     charges.  120, I believe, has 2.6 kilos of explosive, and an

 8     82-millimetre has 680 grams.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Would you please answer the question that was put to

10     you by Mr. Weber.  Whether it's true that due to the lighter mass of the

11     tail-fin, it requires less force to push it back, I take it, upon impact

12     compared to the heavier 120-millimetre tail-fin.

13             Could you answer that question.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Probably.  Because the dimensions

15     are smaller.  But that depends primarily on the size and on the type of

16     material.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  You mean material of what?  Of the tail-fin?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The material of the stabiliser.

19     During explosion, it has to be torn off and kicked back, depending on the

20     force acting upon it.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

22             MR. WEBER:  I don't know if Judge Moloto had a question or ...

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I was just thinking that I would accept that the

24     material would be the same, the size and weight would be different

25     because the one is bigger than the other.  But they would made from the

Page 39594

 1     same kind of steel, so I'm not quite sure what you mean by it depends on

 2     the material.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not sure the material is the

 4     same.  I would have to check.

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.

 6             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, I tender 65 ter 33098A into evidence at

 7     this time.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me just see when you had it on the screen,

 9     didn't you say that it was already in evidence?

10             MR. WEBER:  I believe the one on the left for the 120 millimetre

11     is in evidence.  There's been multiple references to the relevant pages

12     from the 82 millimetre.  There's a lot of pages uploaded in this version,

13     and we're just tendering it all at this time.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Madam Registrar.

15             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 33098A receives Exhibit P7549, Your

16     Honours.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  P7549 is admitted.

18             MR. WEBER:

19        Q.   Ms. Subotic, turning your attention to the Vase Miskina shelling

20     on 27 May 1992, you agree that an 82-millimetre mortar shell exploded

21     upon impact on this occasion; right?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   The direction of fire was 175 degrees with a margin of error;

24     correct?

25        A.   Yes, almost normal to the plane; that is to say, the street.

Page 39595

 1        Q.   There direction of fire is to the south slightly to the east

 2     toward the area of Trebevic; correct?

 3        A.   I don't know.  I would really have to open it and look.  I don't

 4     know it by heart.  I hope you don't mind.

 5        Q.   Not at all, ma'am.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, it would assist me, and perhaps my

 7     colleagues as well, if you would point us to which report we find it

 8     exactly and where approximately in that report so that we can open it and

 9     have it available for ourselves.

10             MR. WEBER:  I'm referring to the shelling report, paragraph 18,

11     which is 1D5498.  And my last question went to the witness's more broad

12     knowledge.

13        A.   Yes, that direction is 175.  We indicated it on the Google Earth

14     picture and we agreed with the direction determined by the CSB

15     investigators.

16        Q.   Okay.  As part of your analysis and your discussion in your

17     report of this incident, you rely on multiple documents from the BiH MUP

18     investigative file, including multiple reports, death certificates and

19     photos; correct?

20        A.   Yes.  Yes.

21        Q.   Based on your review of the investigative file, you are aware

22     that the location where the shell impacted was in the vicinity of the

23     school of economics; correct?

24        A.   Well, we looked at its position at impact, taking into account

25     the sketch of the Vase Miskina Street, 5 metres from the door, opposite

Page 39596

 1     the Planika facility, et cetera.  We oriented it to the data given in the

 2     report and the sketch of the scene.

 3        Q.   Okay.  The conclusions of the investigators conflict with your

 4     opinion in this case insofar as they determined the shell came from the

 5     area of Trebevic; right?

 6        A.   Well, obviously they did not take into account all the elements

 7     that we had analysed, as you've seen --

 8        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... ma'am, I'm just asking to be

 9     clear.  I'm just trying to define the issue that you're really taking.

10             The conclusions of the investigators conflict with your opinion

11     in this case, as they determined that it came from the area of Trebevic;

12     correct?

13        A.   Correct.

14        Q.   You based your opinion for the angle of descent for the shelling

15     of Vase Miskina on photos and your visit to the location in September of

16     2010; right?

17        A.   No.  Those photographs that we made in 2010 are in full accord

18     with the photographs that are in the photo documentation of the CSB and

19     that was subsequently compiled.  And it is not in accord with the

20     original photo documentation that was made when help was provided and

21     before Vase Miskina Street was cleared.

22             So these two documentations are not in accord with one another,

23     and we don't know when this other documentation was made.  And I already

24     said that it was on the 10th of August that year that it was added to the

25     case file and that that was written in hand, so we saw that on the

Page 39597

 1     original footage and on Robert Rogers' photographs because that was

 2     compatible.

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Can I get some clarification.

 4             Ms. Subotic, you are recorded at page 54, starting at line 2, to

 5     say:  "No, those photographs that we made in 2010 are in full accord with

 6     the photographs that are in the photo documentation of the CSB, and that

 7     was subsequently compiled."

 8             And then the next sentence:  "And it is not in accord with the

 9     original photo documentation that was made when help was provided and

10     before Vase Miskina Street was cleared ..."

11             Do I understand that there are three different sets of

12     photographs:  The photographs made by you in 2010; the photographs made

13     by the CSB, those are in accord; and then there are photographs that were

14     made to help which was -- when help was provided at the street.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.  Your understanding is

16     correct.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

18             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 1D05498,

19     English e-court page 45 only, focussing on the image.  And if we could

20     please focus on the image.

21        Q.   This is the side-by-side comparison photograph that was discussed

22     with you on direct examination at transcript page 39144 and shortly

23     thereon.

24             According to the end of the paragraph immediately above the

25     photo - if we could please see that - the -- according to this

Page 39598

 1     paragraph and the caption, the photo on the left is the Roger Richards

 2     image and the one on the right from the BiH MUP investigative file from

 3     this event; correct?

 4        A.   Yes.  From that documentation that the investigators compiled

 5     after the clearing -- at least that is what is written there after the

 6     wounded were carried away.  However, we don't know when.  And then the

 7     handwritten note pertains to that photo documentation.  What I said a

 8     moment ago.  It said that it was on the 10th of August, 1992, that this

 9     was attached to the file.

10        Q.   Ma'am, please focus on my questions.  I will just go step by step

11     and it will actually go faster that way.

12             The photo from the investigative file appears to be taken from

13     immediately above the crater here; correct?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   Looking down at footnote 66 - and I see you have your report in

16     front you - you specify the ERN range of the photo file and the

17     particular ERN 00267984 for the specific photo on the right.  You then

18     state:  "The distortion has been eliminated from this photograph in order

19     to show it side by side."  And you also state:  "This correction did not

20     in any way alter the facts as depicted in the photograph."

21             My question:  Did you use any computer software, Photoshop or

22     some other sort of image editing software, on the BiH MUP photograph?

23        A.   My colleague made this compilation of two photographs, and

24     obviously he equated the measures of the tiles on both photographs so

25     that they could be matched.

Page 39599

 1        Q.   What is the name of this colleague?

 2        A.   Mr. Mile Poparic, the co-signatory of my report and my associate.

 3        Q.   In your previous testimony in the Karadzic case, at transcript

 4     page 38362, you discussed a contemporary technology which "allows for

 5     each such photograph to be placed in a vertical position by computer

 6     analysis and thereby remove the angle from which it was filmed and

 7     deformations caused by the photography that can all be removed."

 8             Did you apply or did Mr. Poparic apply this technology to the

 9     photo from the investigative file which is before us?

10        A.   When I spoke about this position in terms of the orthogonal

11     projection I said then when I testified in the Karadzic case I spoke

12     about figure 17 and you see here that thanks to how the photograph was

13     taken it was easy to correlate the tiles --

14        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... I'd like to keep moving.  If

15     you could please focus on my question is whether or not that contemporary

16     technology that you spoke was applied to the photograph?

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic.

18             MR. LUKIC:  I object.  My learned friend was just corrected

19     because he was showing figure 14 and Ms. Subotic told him that they were

20     talking about 17.  So it was not right to mislead the witness.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's first then check whether it's 14 or 17 and

22     whether it's the same in both cases or whether these are corresponding

23     photographs.

24             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, in the paragraph -- I believe this is

25     not correct.  In the paragraph above the figure 14, it says:  "In order

Page 39600

 1     to facilitate the analysis, figure 14 shows side by side the image of the

 2     crater taken by war correspondent Roger Richards and the image of the

 3     crater from the photo file made during the onsite investigation by the BH

 4     public prosecutor."  And then the footnote after the sentence is 66 and

 5     then I'm referring to 66, so ...

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you now answer the question, Witness?  Was

 7     this software applied or not.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it was applied in the sense

 9     that the edges of the left- and the right-hand photographs were brought

10     in line so that the craters could be compared in relation to the

11     sidewalk, the tiles, so that it could be seen clearly that these -- that

12     this is not one and the same crater.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness, you went, again, beyond the question.

14     Apparently the software was applied.  Mr. Weber then will put his next

15     question to you, after you have confirmed, and if there's any further

16     explanation needed, Mr. Lukic has an opportunity in re-examination.

17             So would you please focus your answer on the questions.

18             Mr. Weber.

19             MR. WEBER:  Could we keep this photo on the screen, this image on

20     the screen, and next to it please bring up a second photo under 65 ter

21     33168, page 23 of the B/C/S version only.

22        Q.   Ms. Subotic, coming up before you will be the BiH MUP

23     investigative file and specifically the photo that you reference in

24     footnote 66.

25             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, if we could leave it as is.

Page 39601

 1             Your Honours, if we could keep it as it originally appears in the

 2     photo file.  It's been rotated.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Is that how it is now?  It has been rotated quite

 4     a -- couple of times.  I don't know whether this is the original.  Could

 5     you have --

 6             Mr. Weber, is the way in which you would like to have it?

 7             MR. WEBER:  I would have to call up now on my own computer the

 8     actual file to see if that's the -- for my purposes, I think I can make

 9     do with what's up.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Let's --

11             MR. WEBER:

12        Q.   We see the original photo that you referenced from the photo

13     file.  This photo was taken from the side and not from above the crater;

14     correct?

15        A.   This photograph, yes.  As far as I can remember there was a

16     photograph that was taken in front, in that same photo documentation.

17        Q.   I put it to that this photo was edited and changed in angle --

18     ma'am, if I could please ask my question.

19             I put it to you that this photo was edited and changed in angle,

20     in an attempt to create an appearance of a different crater; right?

21        A.   Of course that's not correct.  There are photographs that were

22     provided here in this expert report from this same documentation that

23     were taken from here, and here you can also see that there is no such

24     case.  So that is to say, this photograph did not need to be used.  These

25     photographs were not redacted, except that we are talking about figure 14

Page 39602

 1     now.  The only thing that was done there was as follows:  In the

 2     photograph that is in the photo documentation, it's not the one that you

 3     showed us, the tiles, the size of the tiles was adjusted to that that was

 4     taken by war reporter Rogers in order to make a global comparison in

 5     terms of what this looks like and one can see that nothing else was done

 6     on it.  Anyone who is familiar with this technology Photoshop, et cetera

 7     is aware of that.

 8             So by way of comparison, it is only that -- that the only reason

 9     why in Photoshop this was done, in terms of this photograph from the

10     photo documentation.

11             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, if we could just scroll down on the left

12     panel.  And a little bit over to the right.

13        Q.   Just reading in for the record on the screen before us is ERN

14     00267984.  If we could please up just a little bit and a little bit back

15     over to the right so the photo is back in -- centred.  Thank you so much.

16             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, at this time could we please take a

17     screen capture of what's on the screen, and I tender that into evidence.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

19             THE REGISTRAR:  This screen shot receives exhibit number P7550,

20     Your Honours.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

22             MR. WEBER:  Could the --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I just ask you --

24             MR. WEBER:  Sure.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Is it the Prosecution's position that what we see on

Page 39603

 1     the left, which is the non-adapted photograph, that that depicts the same

 2     crater as we see on the photograph taken apparently by Roger Richards?

 3             MR. WEBER:  Yes.  It would be and then --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  That's your position?

 5             MR. WEBER:  It is.  I will verify it.

 6                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

 7             MR. WEBER:  Okay.  I was misunderstanding you.  I thought we were

 8     talking about the photo on the right.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  What I'm talking about is --

10             MR. WEBER: [Overlapping speakers] ... the Richards photo.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  You -- it's the position of the Prosecution that the

12     photograph to the left which is taken without any further adaptation by

13     software from the report which was made at the time, depicts the same

14     crater as, if I could say so, in the more greyish photograph taken by

15     Roger Richards, that those craters are the same.

16             MR. WEBER:  If I could check one thing and then just report to

17     the Chamber after the next break, that would be great.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Please do so.

19                           [Trial Chamber confers]

20             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have 65 --

21             JUDGE ORIE:  One second.  One second.  One second, please.

22                           [Trial Chamber confers]

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Weber.

24             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 1D5498, page

25     40 of the English and page 41 of the B/C/S.

Page 39604

 1        Q.   These are two figures from your shelling report related to the

 2     incident.  The top figure is from the photo file in 1992 with what

 3     appears to be an annotation on it; correct?

 4             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  We could not hear the

 5     witness.

 6             MR. WEBER:

 7        Q.   Ma'am, if you could please repeat your answer.

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   The bottom figure contains photos that you took during your visit

10     in 2010; correct?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   The photos you took are closer to the crater and from a different

13     angle than the investigative file; right?

14        A.   Not close to the crater.  Later on, it was zoomed in from the

15     photograph.  And then details were provided.

16        Q.   The area where the shell landed is located in a part of the city

17     with heavy foot traffic; correct?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   During your visit in 2010, you could see that the blast marks

20     were worn down; correct?

21        A.   Yes, yes, that is why they were marked in red so that they would

22     be preserved.

23        Q.   Do I understand correctly that, according to figure 7 of your

24     report, you measured the distance between the centre and the farthest

25     edge of the crater to be 16 centimetres?

Page 39605

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   Directing your attention back to --

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  But is the top line on the centre or a

 4     few inches -- a distance away from the centre?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't understand what you mean.

 6     I'm sorry.  The measuring was carried out between the 24th and the 40th

 7     centimetre.  That was our assessment, I mean.

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The question had been whether the 16 centimetre

 9     distance starts from the centre of the crater.  I assume that the centre

10     of the crater is that white dot in the centre where your measuring ruler

11     stands and I'm saying is it really from the centre or is it --

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do apologise.  The photograph

13     with the scale is a photograph from the photo documentation of the

14     Bosnian investigators with the 16 centimetres marked red from the edge of

15     the crater to the edge of the tile.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  So it's not from the centre of the crater.  That

17     explains it.  Thank you very much.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, no.  The very edge of the

19     crater to the tile.

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

21             MR. WEBER:

22        Q.   Directing your attention now to the top photo, you agree that the

23     blast marks from the crater extend beyond 16 centimetres; right?  The

24     farthest blast marks?

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Weber, your question has not been transcribed

Page 39606

 1     fully, and as a result I can't remember it.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

 3             MR. WEBER:  I will repeat my question.

 4        Q.   I was directing your attention back to the top photograph and

 5     asking if you agreed that the blast marks from the crater extend beyond

 6     16 centimetres?  The top photo.  You agree; correct?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I think your question was a little bit

 9     problematic, Mr. Weber.  We were told the 16 centimetres indicate the

10     distance between the line between the blocks on the footpath and the

11     edge -- it's not from the centre of the crater, as the witness responded

12     to Judge Moloto.  And, therefore, perhaps you should rephrase your

13     question.

14             MR. WEBER:  Thank you, Your Honour.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps would it assist if we have the title that we

16     could read the title of figure 7 in English version.  That's on the next

17     page.  So that we know what is depicted in --

18             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  We are, at the moment dealing with figure 6.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  6.  Okay.  Then we'll leave it to figure 6 at this

20     very moment.

21             MR. WEBER:  Let's keep moving along.  Could the Prosecution

22     please have 65 ter 331 --

23             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  You should put the question in the correct form

24     again with respect to figure 6.

25             MR. WEBER:

Page 39607

 1        Q.   So what I'm asking you generally - and we do see that there's

 2     some measurements that you annotated on here - is whether based on this

 3     photo, you would agree that from the centre of that crater, as marked by

 4     that white dot to the external peripheral outer traces, that that is more

 5     than 16 centimetres?

 6        A.   It's not the edge of the crater.  That is a different effect.

 7        Q.   I understand you're saying that.  What I'm asking you is that

 8     distance is more than 16 centimetres; correct?

 9        A.   Yes.  You see that the investigators marked it with chalk.

10     Absolutely.

11             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 33168, page

12     5 of the B/C/S and page 3 of the English translation.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, are we at the beginning of a longer

14     exercise --

15             MR. WEBER:  We are.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Then perhaps it's better to -- to take the break

17     first.

18             We'd like to see you back in 20 minutes, Ms. Subotic.  You may

19     follow the usher.

20                           [The witness stands down]

21             JUDGE ORIE:  We will resume at 25 minutes to 2.00.

22                           --- Recess taken at 1.15 p.m.

23                           --- On resuming at 1.40 p.m.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

25             MR. WEBER:  Yes, Your Honour, I can report back on -- as I

Page 39608

 1     indicated last session with regards -- this is with respect to the

 2     Richards photo, what's been called that.  In the report, it's not really

 3     clear to us what the source of the photograph is.  We have independently

 4     checked the available information from the institute for genocide and

 5     according to the online photo gallery, it does indicate it from

 6     Mr. Richards.  However, it does not include information on the location

 7     of the crater or the site being depicted.  So --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  That's not what we asked for.  We asked whether the

 9     position of the Prosecution is that it's the same; yes or no.

10             MR. WEBER:  Based on that, which is why I'm saying that, the

11     Prosecution is not able to agree that is the same crater that is being

12     depicted in the Richards photograph.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

14                           [The witness takes the stand]

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's proceed.

16             And I think that's exactly what the report tells us, that it's

17     not the same crater.  Apart from whatever else may have been written

18     there, but --

19             MR. WEBER:  I've reported what the known information is and I'm

20     happy to proceed.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

22             MR. WEBER:

23        Q.   Ms. Subotic, before you is the first full document in the

24     investigative file for the Vase Miskina Street shelling.  It's the

25     official report of the incident dated 30 May 1992.  We could not locate

Page 39609

 1     reference to this document in the footnotes of your report.

 2             Could the Prosecution please have the next page of the English

 3     translation, e-court page 4.  And if, for the witness, we could please

 4     enlarge the lower portion of the page before her.

 5             So I believe we are seeking page 5 of the B/C/S, lower half and

 6     page 4 of the English translation.

 7             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  English page 4.

 8             MR. WEBER:  We have the correct pages.  If we could please zoom

 9     in the middle section of the B/C/S version so it is a little bit more

10     visible for her.  And if we could -- it's going to the second full

11     paragraph down in the English version.

12        Q.   Ms. Subotic, toward the bottom half of the page before you, the

13     report states:  "The shell made a 50 by 60 centimetre elliptic-shaped

14     crater on the concrete sidewalk with peripheral traces of 60 to 100

15     centimetres away from the centre of the crater and arranged in an arc

16     around it."

17             The peripheral traces measured in May 1992 indicate that the

18     distance from the centre of the crater to the peripheral traces was at

19     least 40 centimetres; correct?

20        A.   Correct.  And we quoted this in our report.

21        Q.   Based on these measurements, I put it to you the actual angle of

22     descent was much lower than the 83 degrees you arrived at.

23        A.   On the basis of these measurements, yes, you are right.

24             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have page 10 of the

25     B/C/S and page 80 [sic] of the English translation.

Page 39610

 1             I'm looking for page 8 of the English translation.

 2        Q.   Last week at transcript page 39136, you stated regarding this

 3     incident:  "First of all, there is no police report from an on-site

 4     investigation which was conducted at the time of the evacuation."

 5             Before you is the 27 May on-site investigation report related to

 6     the Vase Miskina shelling.  According to the document, an on-site

 7     investigation was carried out under the supervision of an investigating

 8     judge on the same day of the shelling, 27 May 1992, at 1400 hours.

 9             The ballistics findings are in the same document.

10             You agree that there was an on-site investigation on the same day

11     of the shelling; correct?

12        A.   When I said that, I meant there was no special police on-site

13     investigation.  As for this investigation that was carried out with the

14     investigating judge, we know about that, and it was quoted.

15        Q.   At this time, the Prosecution would tender the complete BiH MUP

16     investigative file for the Vase Miskina file under 65 ter 33186.  I

17     believe a number was already reserved for it as D1243 MFI and this was at

18     transcript page 39142.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, that is the complete report.

20             MR. LUKIC:  The problem, it's obviously recently uploaded a

21     couple of days ago so we really have to go through the same and we are

22     checking when, actually, it was uploaded into the system.  So.

23             JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ...

24             MR. LUKIC:  [Overlapping speakers] ... most of this document has

25     never been given to the Defence.

Page 39611

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Has it not been disclosed?  That's apparently what

 2     you are telling us.

 3             MR. WEBER:  According to our records, copies of this material and

 4     files were disclosed in the Karadzic case on 2 February 2010 and also in

 5     the Mladic case on 24 February 2012.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  In addition, the witness said she quoted, she had

 7     it.

 8             MR. LUKIC:  She didn't see this whole document.  I'm talking

 9     about the whole document.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated] I don't know about that.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  It's been disclosed and if portions of this

12     had been used by your expert, Mr. Lukic, then I take it that you have --

13     is the only issue that you do not know whether this is the complete

14     report or is it there anything else?  Is there any other reason why it

15     should not be admitted.

16             MR. LUKIC:  I know that I have never seen this document before.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but that's not relevant, whether you or --

18             MR. LUKIC:  I thought I saw everything they saw and we are trying

19     to locate it in EDS system, it's not there.  So it is not disclosed to

20     us.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  So your conclusion then is that it would have not

22     have been disclosed.

23             MR. WEBER:  And, Your Honours, I'm happy to assist Mr. Lukic.  I

24     know there are multiple ERNs related to this file.  So what I quoted from

25     were copies of this, and I do have an ERN range I can give to Mr. Lukic.

Page 39612

 1             MR. LUKIC: [Microphone not activated]

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Microphone.  Microphone.

 3             MR. LUKIC:  I don't understand whether we received more documents

 4     and now it's compiled or whether everything was disclosed to us before.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Apparently if the witness says that she referred to

 6     it, then it comes a bit as a surprise that the Defence is totally unaware

 7     because this is evidence you are presenting before this Chamber.

 8             Give me one second, please.

 9             MR. LUKIC:  Your Honour, if I may add ...

10                           [Trial Chamber confers]

11             JUDGE ORIE:  The problems potentially remaining, Mr. Lukic, is

12     because you used the -- at least portions of this document as well, there

13     are two issues remaining.  The one is whether it was never disclosed.

14     Then, still, you apparently were aware of portions of it.  The second

15     issue is whether this now is the complete document, yes or no.

16             We'll admit it into evidence.  You have one week to revisit one

17     of these questions if there's any reason to do so.

18             Madam Registrar.

19             THE REGISTRAR:  The reserved number for the document is D1243,

20     Your Honours.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence and the Defence has

22     one week to revisit the issues I specifically raised.

23             Please proceed.

24             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, just to assist the Defence, because I

25     think that there are multiple ranges that the file has been restamped.

Page 39613

 1     We were showing ERN range 02179616 to 02180115 was disclosed in

 2     February 2012 in disclosure batch 5 and then redisclosed again on

 3     20 July 2012 in disclosure batch 5.2.  If that's assistance.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, if you would read the transcript, it says

 5     it was "slowed."  Well, perhaps you said that it was disclosed, but

 6     perhaps slowing down was the real thing that needed your attention at

 7     this very moment.

 8             Please proceed.

 9             MR. WEBER:  Thank you, Your Honours.

10             At this time the Prosecution also tenders the original video

11     footage related to the shelling under 65 ter 33096A.  Ms. Subotic relies

12     on footage from the shelling as part of her report and this is the better

13     quality video we referenced at transcript page 39140.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  I hear of no objections.

15             Madam Registrar.

16             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 33096A receives Exhibit P7551

17     Your Honours.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  And I see that Ms. Stewart is offering the copies on

19     CD.  Therefore, P7551 can be admitted and hereby is admitted.

20             MR. WEBER:

21        Q.   Ms. Subotic, you are aware that Mount Trebevic is a significant

22     elevation to the south of Sarajevo; correct?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   Could the Prosecution please have 1D05498, page 50 of the English

25     and page 51 of the B/C/S.  And if we could focus on table 5 -- I believe

Page 39614

 1     table 4.

 2             In paragraph 15 of your report, where you are discussing the

 3     Vase Miskina shelling, you include table 4 with ranges for different

 4     82-millimetre shells.  Could you please first confirm that these ranges

 5     are taken from the 82-millimetre mortar table you reference in footnote

 6     82?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   You did not factor the elevation of Mount Trebevic into these

 9     ranges; correct?

10        A.   I think the tables were made for 500 metres, but, no, I did

11     not -- well, I had to do it directly.  I'd have to check.  I mean, plus

12     500 is the standard way of doing these tables.  At least over the past 20

13     years.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  I think there may be some misunderstanding.

15             Mr. Weber, you may have not been very precise, but what you

16     wanted to refer to, I take it, is the difference in elevation rather than

17     at what standard elevation you would test these projectiles.

18             Did you, when you used this table, did you consider that there is

19     a difference in altitude for possible places of firing and places of

20     impact?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you --

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- this is.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  You have not considered that.  That is an answer to

25     my question.

Page 39615

 1             Please proceed.

 2             MR. WEBER:  And Your Honour thank you for the clarification.

 3        Q.   Now for 82-millimetre M74, you list the ranges for the primary

 4     charge through charge 4 and nothing for charges 5 and 6.  Later in the

 5     paragraph, you state that an 82-millimetre M74 fired with charge 6 could

 6     have been fired from the territory controlled by the VRS.  Based on the

 7     tables the information you have for the M74 does not appear to be

 8     incorporated into table 4 of your report.  Do you agree that we should

 9     rely on the actual tables which do indicate that an M74 has the range you

10     describe later in your report?

11        A.   I didn't think it was necessary for me to mention the other two

12     either because this has to do with the stabiliser that was found far

13     away.  I mean, it doesn't even -- people don't even know where it was

14     found and no attempt was made for it to be in the surface at the place

15     where the explosion took place.  That is to say, that no way more than

16     charge 4 could have been used.

17        Q.   An M68 82-millimetre mortar is a practice round; correct?

18        A.   I don't think so but we can look.  I don't think so because these

19     are data for M68, M1.  We can look at the tables.

20        Q.   I want -- the Chamber actually now has them in evidence.  If we

21     could have 65 ter -- I'm sorry, it's just been admitted.  Exhibit P7549.

22     And if we could go to page 34 of the B/C/S and page 59 of the English.

23             Could we actually go one page further in the B/C/S.  But I

24     believe we can leave the same translated page up.  And if we could still

25     go one further, to the end of charge 6 is what I'm looking for.  If we

Page 39616

 1     could go on.  And one more further.  Thank you.

 2             Thanks for your patience.  I'm sorry.  We're almost there.  One

 3     page further.  Here we go.  Thank you very much.

 4             In paragraph 16 of your shelling report, you indicate that the

 5     maximum range of an 82-millimetre M74 is 4850 metres.  Before you is a

 6     page of the firing tables for this type of mortar, and if I direct your

 7     attention down to the very last line of it, is it correct that you based

 8     the maximum range on the last entry from this page of the table?

 9        A.   Yes.  I don't see where the problem is.  But this has nothing to

10     do with what you asked a moment ago.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Wait for the next question, please, Ms. Subotic.

12             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have page 13 of the

13     B/C/S and page 17 of the translation.  And, I apologise, I have some

14     wrong paginations here.  If we could go forward six pages in the B/C/S.

15     And if we could please go ... I'm looking for the ERN that ends in 4842,

16     so I believe it's now three pages back.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  There's not 42 at the end.  There we are.

18             MR. WEBER:

19        Q.   All right.  Based upon this page of the table, the maximum range

20     for an 82-millimetre M74 mortar fired on charge 2 is 2180 metres;

21     correct?

22        A.   Yes.  But it doesn't have an angle of descent of 82 to 84

23     degrees.

24        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ...

25        A.   The angle of descent in this table is indicated for that weapon

Page 39617

 1     with that charge as 83 to 84 degrees.

 2        Q.   Okay.  Consistent with the findings of the BiH investigators,

 3     Serb military forces in the area of Sarajevo were firing shells on

 4     27 May 1992 from the direction of Trebevic; right?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   I want to show you something --

 7        A.   I don't understand the question.

 8        Q.   Okay.  Let's look at an exhibit.  Could the Prosecution please

 9     have 65 ter 17610 for the witness.

10             This is an intercepted conversation involving Milisav Gagovic

11     from 27 May 1992.  Colonel Gagovic was the acting commander of the JNA

12     4th Corps in May 1992.  He -- during the conversation he's speaking with

13     a Colonel Cado, who states:  "People have just told me that a shell

14     coming from the direction of Trebevic fell down near the faculty of

15     economics and killed five people."

16             "Gagovic:  From Trebevic?

17             "Cado:  Yes, somewhere from that direction.

18             "Gagovic:  Who the fuck is firing from up there constantly."

19             Seeing this, I put it to that you the fact is that Serb forces

20     were aware of the firing from Trebevic on that day and fired in the

21     vicinity of the Vase Miskina shelling referenced here as the faculty of

22     economics.  Do you agree?

23        A.   No.  Maybe you can assert that on of the basis of this, but I

24     don't have that choice unfortunately.  I have to show evidence and I must

25     have all the evidence consistent with each other in order to determine a

Page 39618

 1     direction of fire.  I would maybe have -- like to have the same degree of

 2     liberty as you do, but I don't.

 3             MR. WEBER:  The Prosecution tenders 65 ter 17610 into evidence.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar -- Mr. Lukic.

 5             MR. LUKIC:  We always object to these intercepts.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that's the standard objection and that

 7     objection is denied.

 8             Madam Registrar.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 17610 receives Exhibit P7552,

10     Your Honours.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  P7552 is admitted into evidence.

12             MR. WEBER:

13        Q.   Ms. Subotic, we just have a couple of remaining moments, so I'll

14     just try to cover some general questions before the end of the day.

15             If multiple projectiles were fired at the same location within a

16     period of time of not more than 15 minutes, do you agree that this shows

17     that the location is being intentionally targeted?

18        A.   It would be logical to conclude that.

19        Q.   Okay.  If multiple projectiles were fired into the same

20     half-kilometre area over the course of four to six hours, do you agree

21     that the intention is to target that area?

22        A.   As you said, I'm not a military expert.  I don't want to

23     interfere into tactics.  Let's say that I would try to get away from that

24     area.  I cannot give you a qualified answer.

25        Q.   That's why I was asking --

Page 39619

 1             JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... Mr. Weber, the Chamber, at

 2     various moments, has made observations as to what are the limits of the

 3     expertise of this witness, and I would like you to keep in mind those

 4     limits as well.

 5             MR. WEBER:  Of course, Your Honours.  I appreciate your

 6     indulgence.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

 8             MR. WEBER:  And actually, Your Honours, I'm about to start into a

 9     large different area.  I know it's a couple of minutes early --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, perhaps better not to interrupt if it is --

11     unless you would have one or two small questions, but if not.  It's of

12     some concern anyhow, Mr. Weber, that you don't have a few small

13     questions, but then perhaps it's better to adjourn for the day.

14             Ms. Subotic, same instruction applies as I gave the previous

15     days.  We adjourn for the day.  Since we are not sitting on Fridays,

16     we'll adjourn until Monday, the 5th of October, 9.30 in this same

17     Courtroom I, and you, again, hereby are instructed not to communicate

18     with whomever about your testimony, either given or still to be given.

19             You may follow the usher.

20             THE ACCUSED: [No interpretation]

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mladic, you're supposed not to speak aloud.  If

22     you want to bring anything to the attention -- and you have been

23     communicating the whole of the morning with the public gallery which you

24     are supposed not to do, so please refrain from doing it.  Focus on what

25     happens here rather than on the public gallery.

Page 39620

 1                           [The witness stands down]

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  However, before we really adjourn --

 3             THE ACCUSED: [No interpretation]

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mladic, if you want to in any way address the

 5     Chamber, you can do so through counsel.

 6             Mr. Stojanovic, if there's really anything then ...

 7                           [Defence counsel confer]

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mladic, your behaviour is fully contrary to what

 9     you're expected to do, and that's already the whole of the morning.

10             Mr. Stojanovic, anything to be addressed at this moment.

11             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Very briefly, Your Honour.  What

12     Mr. Mladic was trying to protest is that his request to have a visit

13     today was rejected, and he is protesting because the Detention Unit did

14     not allow that visit.  That's all.  Nothing else that is not connected

15     with the goings-on in the courtroom.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Stojanovic, you know exactly how to deal with

17     any request which is denied and how to approach that.  And you also know

18     that the Trial Chamber is not involved in such matters and Mr. Mladic is

19     apparently insistent on his bad behaviour.  We leave it to that.

20             But I would -- I would like to briefly deal with a matter before

21     we adjourn in private session.

22             Could we turn into private session.

23                           [Private session]

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 39621

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23                           [Open session]

24             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in open session, Your Honours.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

Page 39622

 1             We adjourn for the day, and we'll resume Monday, the 5th of

 2     October, 9.30 in the morning, in this same courtroom, I.

 3                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.16 p.m.,

 4                           to be reconvened on Monday, the 5th day of October,

 5                           2015, at 9.30 a.m.